50th anniversary of "anime" on TV: "50 Masterpieces for 50 Years of TV Anime"

User Name

Remember Me?

Password

Notices

Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

It's interesting that, right after the list in the original article, the author provides their own sort of explanation for their choices, which addresses some of the criticisms expressed in this thread. Some highlights:

1. As a general rule, the author picked representative works that started a series or trend (with some exceptions). (This would explain, for example, why Air and not Clannad.) He also said later that he considered series that had enduring popularity/notoriety, where sequels were still being produced today.

2. He acknowledged that, though he tried to be objective and consider journalistic ideals of fairness, in the end some of it is subjective.

3. He said that he's prefer people who disagree with the choices to focus more on what they'd add and what they'd take away from the list.

4. He also said that, given the large increase of productions starting in 2000, he really struggled with what to leave in and what to take out. (And I think that, given the familiarity most of us here have with anime in the last decade, that's probably going to be the most controversial here. It may still be too soon to get a clear picture.)

As a point of interest, to prepare the article, the author conducted an interview with Masaki Tsuji, the 80-year-old veteran anime scenario and scriptwriter who worked on a lot of famous anime from the 60s, 70s, and 80s (including many of Tezuka's early works).

He also addressed how the concept of "50 anime for 50 years" ended up with a list of 104 anime.

Anyway, the list probably makes more sense in the context of the article from which it was lifted, rather than just taken standalone without any explanation. It's not necessarily claiming to be the be-all end-all.

Precisely....so why should a list from East Asia be treated as of less value? Because only what the complainer deems is important has merit?

Every list regardless of region of origin should have zero influence on your tastes and views

The biggest reason is that rules, culture, and etiquettes that governs journalism and publishing is different in East Asia ( mainly China, Korea, and Japan ) compared to English speaking regions ( mainly USA, UK, and Canada ) is different. Some of the important difference involves reviews of methodology, disclosure of conflict of interest, and willingness to ensure objectivity. While good number of good and bad examples can be found anywhere in the world, on average, East Asian media is worse than English speaking media in the disclosures and quality of methodology employed in making of so called "Top XX" lists.(numbers that can partially back up my claim comes from http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2012/results/ and http://www.globalintegrity.org/report/findings ) Many lists you see Japan anime magazines is heavily tainted by commercial interest of that magazine. The problem usually extends to more serious matters in all 3 big East Asian countries as far as I know, for often lists and numbers were deliberately "cooked" up to serve the political interest of the people in the power of the publication. Another key difference I notice between the 2 region is that when the methodology involved in making a list is questioned, while English media tends to adjust for it by improving their methodology in the next try, rarely you see East Asian media even acknowledge existence of the question. It is as if English media seeks to attain air of credibility in order to further its commercial interest, while East Asian media is more focused on imposing its views upon the readers.

Again, you will find exceptions in East Asian media as well as English media. Still, you will likely find the prevailing attitude towards making and presentation of list to differ between them. Unlike most people here, I find some head-scratching omissions of many very influential series that also was popular in its day from the list for the 60s and 80s. Curiously, the list does well for the 70s, in my opinion. I will leave it up to the readers to decide how or why the following series was omitted . For the disclosure purpose, I admit the choice can't be backed up by many objective standard, as I lack the resources to do broad survey of "experts" of the subject, but can say these series did make big "splash", some even to the mainstream mass media outlets, when they first appeared.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeta_Gundam <- There are good enough number of new aspects of this series compared to the First Gundam series to make it considered as separate entity for creation of such list.

The series that I have the some bones to pick with is Creamy Mami. Whatever the novelty that can be attributed to that series is better attributed to Macross and Minky Momo. Still, I find enough Japanese to remember the series to not argue against its selection.

Replace 00 with Zeta (although I love the former), add Kenshin, Gunbuster and Martian Successor Nandeshiko. and Naruto. Oh, Inazuma Eleven is kind of popular only in Spanish and Portugal-speaking countries (maybe Vietnam too).

Weither it's a masterpiece or whatever is debatable and frankly a waste of time as a debate.

I think from the 90s onward it's naturally more debatable because the shows in question strike closest to the demos of the forum...........The Anime Fan.............whereas, most stuff from at least the mid eighties and earlier were sizable mainstream hits or are remembered by many people.

It seems to me that this list is a mix between "anime relevant for their artistic and influential value" and "anime relevant for their outstanding popularity", with a very strong focus on the latter really.

When you consider the popularity factor it is not strange that anime like "Shana", "Pokemon", "Yu-gi-oh", "Pretty cure" and so on are there in place of "Seirei no Moribito", "Mushishi" and "Kino no tabi".

The latter are absolutely beautiful but not popular enough by a long shot, sadly.

I'm still baffled like everyone else at "strike witches" and "zero no tsukaima" though. Are they significantly more popular than the plethora of other similar anime that were left out?

I'm still baffled like everyone else at "strike witches" and "zero no tsukaima" though. Are they significantly more popular than the plethora of other similar anime that were left out?

As a representative title for 2008, Strike Witches is an easy pick. It dominated online activity during its broadcast and popularized a new brand of military moe.

Zero no Tsukaima was also big, particularly as an earlier success at promoting light novels as merchandising franchises. It's frequently cited as a representative work for the companies and personnel involved. However, I agree that it doesn't stand out as much, apart from its longevity (multiple sequels over several years) and timing (not the trendsetter but an early hit that solidified a trend).

I have my doubts that Symphogear, VRO, or Girls und Panzer would even exist if not for the success of Strike Witches.

I don't fully buy the ZnT defense though. I think that Shana and Haruhi had much more to do with the popularization of light novel adaptations than ZnT did. ZnT is one of the more questionable titles on the list, imo.